Rogue, Worst Does Not Equal Bad


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have been thinking. While the rogue may be the worst class, or at least that seems to be the complaint, that does not make it bad. The fact is, that it is impossible to perfectly balance all of the classes. Even if Paizo "fixes" the rogue there will always be a class on the bottom. Really, the question is if there is to much of a difference between the best and worst option? I am not honestly sure. I am not very good at judging that sort of thing except by experience. Any way, that you for putting up with my rant. Feel free to add your own thoughts on the matter.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would rather the bottom be a little higher than where the Rogue is.


You are bad.

Shadow Lodge

i firmly believe all classes should be the best or at least good at something, the rogue doesnt fit the bill. While the barbarian is good for damage and the wizard is good for almost everything the rogue is not even that good for skills or dsabling traps which is its primary giminick.

that doesnt mean its unplayable, its just little underwhelming...

personally i would be happy if it just had tricks worth taking, heck even the slayer has much better tricks


Its not just that its on the bottom, but that its not even that good at what its supposed to be good at. Its kind of jarring to have the concept of a sneaky, suave n'er do well constantly at odds with what happens.


Nohwear,
though i agree with your analysis, i personally use homebrew solutions to lessen that distance. there are admittedly many factors that contribute to fun. as a DM who likes to run groups with diverse system mastery, i find the payoff generally worth the investment.

nice name btw.


Well, the rogue class IS "bad" but that doesn't mean it's unplayable or not fun to play.

The problem, like has been stated so many times before, is that the rogue is completely overshadowed in all aspects by other classes, granted each individual one of those classes only cover about 90% of what a roque can do. You have to build a VERY specific type of rogue that can't be completely replaced by a single class, but even then, that class WILL do most of the things that rogue can do, better than the rogue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you can tell which class is the worst, it's a strong sign that it's not balanced enough.

Let's look at the casting classes.

You can see pretty easily that things like Wizard and Druid are the strongest of the strong, but if you tried to say which is the worst, I feel like you'd be stumped. The sub-tier-1 classes still have a niche. Not just a single Archetype that does something technically unique, but a strong base class that can archetype into specialized jobs without losing too much effectiveness at their original purpose.

This is why people bring up Inquisitors and Alchemists when they talk about balance.

How funny is it that Druids, the guardians of nature and balance are historically a massively unbalanced class?


Rogue sucks at what it's supposedly suited for (sneaky, stabby, assassination). Now that slayer is an option I generally suggest it (or ninja) to people who want to do the sneaky, stealthy, assassin-type characters. Rogue is for other purposes.

It's still not the best at those other purposes, and focused builds in other classes could certainly do better than it, but unless your GM is brutal, the only possible way for you to have fun is to be fully optimized, or you suck so badly that you absolutely need to play a powerful class to compensate for your lack of gaming ability, you'll likely be fine with whatever you choose to play.

Silver Crusade

The Rogue's problem isn't that it's at the bottom of the barrel, the problem is that the Rogue finds it difficult to fill its narrative role.

There's a few reasons for this, first being is that the tool it's given to accomplish this, skills, aren't the best way to do it, as well as aren't unique to the Rogue. The Rogue would have to be the only person who could use certain skills to make this work, and that's really not how this game is set up, especially with the change to class skills. It wasn't really all that great in 3.5 though, so nothing is lost.

The second is that just about everyone who wants to be a Roguish character can be. Investigators, Alchemist, Slayers, and others (full magic classes) can fill the Rogue's narrative role far easier than the Rogue, especially the three previously mentioned classes. The Rogue lacks any reason to be chosen over them aside from assumed flavor (a huge problem that a lot of people seem to have.)

The things that a Rogue should be able to do boarder on magical a lot of the times (such a smooth talker that they can con anyone, able to sneak like a shadow in the night, always has the right tool for the job, destructive when able to sneak attack), and yet there's barely anything unique about the Rogue that allows them to do this. Most Rogue talents are garbo, and this again hurts them since this is their second best tool to accomplish their narrative function.

As pointed out before, the Rogue isn't even the best at skills, their best tool. Looking at Investigator talents vs. Rogue talents and you'll see a massive gulf between the two that boarders on hilarious. Bards are better at skills with Versatile Performance as well, with their SAD Charisma focus. Rogues fall behind, simply having a lot of skills being able to be done at a passable level.

Rogues also have a very strange combat approach, since they're lightly armored with no additional bonuses to AC (such as the Monk), moderate BAB with no way to boost it (no other class is like this), and the worst saves in the game (shared with the Swashbuckler), making combat a scary place for them, and sneak attack almost a worthless addition to their already depressing DPR.

I'd probably say Fighters were the least versatile (aka worst) class in PF, but the problem with Rogues is that with the way the game works, unless some things are heavily houseruled, skills aren't good enough to compare with spells for accomplishing things, and the Rogue's ability to work all day doesn't really matter when everyone else in the party is on a 3-5 encounter per day paradigm, making a Rogue's endurance basically worthless. Without resources to burn, a Rogue is always working at around 75% of what the party is while the rest of the party can kick it up to 110% when things get dicey, making the situation even worse for them.

Rogues aren't bad because they're the worst, they're bad because they can't fulfill the role in which they are ascribed to within the game's current framework. While your experiences may vary, the evidence against them is damning especially in light of the ACG classes basically salting the earth where the Rogue lives so nothing may ever grow again.

Shadow Lodge

Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

You would expect a rogue to use hit and run tactics, sniping with sneak attack, hiding, then striking again.

That does not work with how all other classes do combat, and generally combat is over in 3-4 rounds, so if the Rogue did try to hit and run, their contribution would be minimal.


"adjective, superl. of bad and ill
1.
bad or ill in the highest, greatest, or most extreme degree:"


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If you really think rogues are the worst class and that somehow they need some kind of help, rather than lament it, offer something constructive on how to correct the problem.

I would put that the best possible suggestions are those that are as short as possible and change as few words in the various rogue entries. A couple of tweaks or re-wording are far more likely to meet with approval than some massive rewrite will.

Everything else has been covered numerous times in numerous threads and another rehash is not needed.


Nohwear wrote:
I have been thinking. While the rogue may be the worst class, or at least that seems to be the complaint, that does not make it bad. The fact is, that it is impossible to perfectly balance all of the classes. Even if Paizo "fixes" the rogue there will always be a class on the bottom. Really, the question is if there is to much of a difference between the best and worst option? I am not honestly sure. I am not very good at judging that sort of thing except by experience. Any way, that you for putting up with my rant. Feel free to add your own thoughts on the matter.

The problem is that the rogue is bad.

You can actually argue that classes like warrior and adept are better, and those would be bad PC classes.

But even if you don't believe me, try playing with a GM who actually plays his mobs smart, who takes 5ft steps away from flanking, who has enemies cast blur, who reads what skills can actually do oppose to what people think they can do.

The game systematically punishes the rogue. If you don't have an abysmal time with the class that is because of the quality of your GM or your relative ability to optimize far exceeding everyone else at the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Queen Moragan wrote:

If you really think rogues are the worst class and that somehow they need some kind of help, rather than lament it, offer something constructive on how to correct the problem.

I would put that the best possible suggestions are those that are as short as possible and change as few words in the various rogue entries. A couple of tweaks or re-wording are far more likely to meet with approval than some massive rewrite will.

Everything else has been covered numerous times in numerous threads and another rehash is not needed.

Many have. Many times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Queen Moragan wrote:

If you really think rogues are the worst class and that somehow they need some kind of help, rather than lament it, offer something constructive on how to correct the problem.

I would put that the best possible suggestions are those that are as short as possible and change as few words in the various rogue entries. A couple of tweaks or re-wording are far more likely to meet with approval than some massive rewrite will.

Everything else has been covered numerous times in numerous threads and another rehash is not needed.

Better rogue talents would help so much.


Queen Moragan wrote:
If you really think rogues are the worst class and that somehow they need some kind of help, rather than lament it, offer something constructive on how to correct the problem.

You would see more of that on the houserule forum

Not that I
Haven't tried
To make this class idea work.
(You could also just give the rogue the headband of the ninjustu effect and the effect of greater sniper goggles for free, as a quick patch).


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Anzyr wrote:

Many have. Many times.

Yes, and almost all have not been simple either.

If I were one of the Devs, I would ignore almost all that is not simple.


Queen Moragan wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

Many have. Many times.

Yes, and almost all have not been simple either.

If I were one of the Devs, I would ignore almost all that is not simple.

If the answer were simple, it would already be implemented.

Silver Crusade

The fix is simple; replace Rogue with Investigator in core, give Studied Combat at 2nd level, and done.


Queen Moragan wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

Many have. Many times.

Yes, and almost all have not been simple either.

If I were one of the Devs, I would ignore almost all that is not simple.

They are simple. They just take the necessary step of making a level 7+ Rogue not *mundane*. The big issue is that people hate the martial classes like Fighter and Rogue and want to see them constrained to our "lower-then-level-6 reality".


Queen Moragan wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

Many have. Many times.

Yes, and almost all have not been simple either.

If I were one of the Devs, I would ignore almost all that is not simple.

Complex problems often do not have simple solutions.

Mind you simple or no, no change would be implemented in the current version of the game (Pathfinder Unchained notwithstanding).


Queen Moragan wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

Many have. Many times.

Yes, and almost all have not been simple either.

If I were one of the Devs, I would ignore almost all that is not simple.

I see no reason that fixes need to be simple. You would only need that if you wished to errata the CRB rogue to good.

The best way to do that would just be to publish good rogue talents and some feats targeted at the rogue. Shadow strike is a decent feat, but all it does is cover a weakness. It needs to add to the character not just patch it or at least patch multiple issues. Perhaps have shadow strike let you full attack from stealth so the rogue can actually assassinate people. Have another feat that takes away the arbitrary range limit on sniping and reduces the penalty to something manageable.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If you really want to fix the rogue, look at the entry in the CRB first. Whatever you change, its going to have to fit into pages 67-70. If it can't, it won't be considered.

And I don't think it needs to be a complex problem,. I think it could be solved with some simple errata.


Queen Moragan wrote:

If you really want to fix the rogue, look at the entry in the CRB first. Whatever you change, its going to have to fit into pages 67-70. If it can't, it won't be considered.

And I don't think it needs to be a complex problem,. I think it could be solved with some simple errata.

You know, you criticize people's solutions without offering any yourself.

It cuts both ways.


Queen Moragan wrote:

If you really want to fix the rogue, look at the entry in the CRB first. Whatever you change, its going to have to fit into pages 67-70. If it can't, it won't be considered.

And I don't think it needs to be a complex problem,. I think it could be solved with some simple errata.

No, it really can't.

You cannot fix a problem like "The class has no particular strengths and several crippling weaknesses" with a simple errata.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Really?


Rynjin wrote:
Queen Moragan wrote:

If you really want to fix the rogue, look at the entry in the CRB first. Whatever you change, its going to have to fit into pages 67-70. If it can't, it won't be considered.

And I don't think it needs to be a complex problem,. I think it could be solved with some simple errata.

No, it really can't.

You cannot fix a problem like "The class has no particular strengths and several crippling weaknesses" with a simple errata.

Oh you can, it would just be bad errata.

"Full BAB, best save progression for all, all weapon and armor proficiency, Replace sneak attack and rogue talents for druid spellcasting"

There viable class, low word count. We just didn't really fix the issue.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Here's a simple errata;

Page 68 CRB, third paragraph. Change the last sentence from this;

"Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet."

To this; "Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet + 5 feet per rogue level."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which fixes exactly zero problems with the class.


Queen Moragan wrote:

Here's a simple errata;

Page 68 CRB, third paragraph. Change the last sentence from this;

"Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet."

To this; "Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet + 5 feet per rogue level."

And how does that fix the entire class?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Which fixes exactly zero problems with the class.

It does make one problem less stupid.


Not really. It doesn't matter how far away you can Sneak Attack from if you can't get the Sneak Attack off more than once per combat in the first place.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Well then Rynjin, why don't you try to offer something that is actually constructive?

Simply stating over and over that rogues suck is not constructive.

Marroar Gellantara you wanted an example on how to errata something better. There you have one, not the best idea, but it only took about 30 seconds. The question is do YOU think it is better or not?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

So if rogues were allowed to make ranged sneak attacks if the target is flanked by others wouldn't help?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

What if it were +10 feet per level?
A 5th level rogue could then snipe from 80 feet.


Actually, if you pay close attention, in ultra-fine print at the end of the rogue description, the developers snuck this little tidbit in:

Complaint Immunity (ex): The rogue is immune to your hatred. The developers like him. There are many players that like him. Any attempts to complain, moan, whine, argue, stomp feet in a childish rage, or otherwise attempt to belittle the rogue result in zero damage and automatic failure. Repeated attempts beyond the first to attack the rogue with insults, logical outlining of their weakness, or other means of assessing inferiority will result in the creation of 5d10 rogues by other players in an effort just to piss you off. This immunity cannot be bypassed by any means whatsoever.

EDIT - actually, it's extraordinary, not supernatural. :-P


thegreenteagamer wrote:

Actually, if you pay close attention, in ultra-fine print at the end of the rogue description, the developers snuck this little tidbit in:

Complaint Immunity (su): The rogue is immune to your hatred. The developers like him. There are many players that like him. Any attempts to complain, moan, whine, argue, stomp feet in a childish rage, or otherwise attempt to belittle the rogue result in zero damage and automatic failure. Repeated attempts beyond the first to attack the rogue with insults, logical outlining of their inferiority, or other means of assessing inferiority will result in the creation of 5d10 rogues by other players in an effort just to piss you off. This immunity cannot be bypassed by any means whatsoever.

I full attack the rogue, he's dead now.

Shadow Lodge

It's a supernatural effect, we're in an anti-magic field here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

My copy doesn't have any of that, just a bunch of crap about sorcerers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That was at typo, TOZ. I realized it after I put it out...

If the fact people still love rogues isn't Extraordinary by it's most literal definition, I don't know what that word means.

Silver Crusade

Queen Moragan wrote:

So if rogues were allowed to make ranged sneak attacks if the target is flanked by others wouldn't help?

Yeah, gonna guess my post went unread on the suggest of why the Rogue sucks eggs.

First things first; better Rogue talents. Hell, have them take the place of the CRB ones since we're doing a 1 for 1 exchange to make this class work.

2nd; another good save, probably Fort. Rogues saves are garbo forever.

III; remove sneak attack, replace it with Studied Strike/Combat. SS is way better since it boost accuracy, Sneak Attack is a bad mechanic, it should be dead. Rogues need accuracy.

Number the 4th; give them a resource pool, base it off of int, give them access to ninja tricks with it. Kind of goes hand in hand with the first one, but the Rogue NEEDS a resource pool.

Aside from the first one, the other 3 are pretty easy to implement. For better talents, we could just give them the Investigator talents, those are WAY better.


Queen Moragan wrote:

What if it were +10 feet per level?

A 5th level rogue could then snipe from 80 feet.

There just shouldn't be a limit. Range penalties are already in the to-hit equation.


Queen Moragan wrote:

So if rogues were allowed to make ranged sneak attacks if the target is flanked by others wouldn't help?

not really. Flanking is hard without a GM being really nice.


Honestly I think we should just drop Rogue as a class altogether. It's beyond fixing and we have plenty of other classes to fit its roles and do them right. Slayer fits the sneaky assassin, Investigator fits the skillmonkey, and Swashbuckler fits the dashing nimble fighter.

Shadow Lodge

thegreenteagamer wrote:
That was at typo, TOZ.

It's a Paizo tradition!


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

N. Jolly

While some of your suggestions are good, what you really want is to replace things the devs are not going to replace.

Marroar

What I meant was, if a target is currently being flanked by others, then a rogue can snipe it.

Silver Crusade

Queen Moragan wrote:

N. Jolly

While some of your suggestions are good, what you really want is to replace things the devs are not going to replace.

Marroar

What I meant was, if a target is currently being flanked by others, then a rogue can snipe it.

You asked for solutions, if you want to put a cap on these solutions to fit some specific mold that you've decided on, please make sure to share it with the rest of us.

We're getting an 'unchained' Rogue, that's supposed to be our solution, so until we see that, there's no way we're getting any changes to the current Rogue, this is all just talking at this point.

Rogue is garbo since it can't do what you'd expect a Rogue to do, period.

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Rogue, Worst Does Not Equal Bad All Messageboards